Marian Landa v. Haellen Holiday
74406-2
Wash. Ct. App.Apr 24, 2017Background
- Landa invited Holiday (her massage therapist) to live on Landa's property under an informal, unstated "barter" arrangement; no written lease was signed.
- Holiday moved in May 2015. On October 22, 2015, Landa terminated the arrangement and asked Holiday to vacate by December 1, 2015, because she planned to rent the whole premises.
- On November 6, 2015, Landa found that Holiday had destroyed and removed many of Landa's personal belongings.
- Landa served Holiday a three-day notice to vacate (November 10, 2015); the trial court granted Landa's motion to show cause and signed an order directing issuance of a writ of restitution on November 30, 2015.
- Holiday vacated the premises the same day the court authorized the writ and then appealed, arguing she was exempt from the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act (RLTA) because she was Landa’s employee.
- The trial record contained Landa’s declaration that Holiday was not her employee; Holiday did not raise the employee/exemption argument below and appended extra-record declarations to her opening brief, which the court declined to consider.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Landa) | Defendant's Argument (Holiday) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Holiday was an employee exempt from the RLTA | Trial court had jurisdiction; Holiday failed to preserve the employee/exemption argument and record shows she was not an employee | Holiday contends RCW 59.18.040(8) exempts employees from RLTA, so the court lacked jurisdiction and she may raise it on appeal | The court held the exemption is a statutory defense (not jurisdictional); Holiday waived the argument by not raising it below and the record does not support employee status, so the trial court did not err |
| Whether the appeal is moot because Holiday no longer possessed the premises | Landa argued the case was moot because Holiday vacated | Holiday argued vacatur was not voluntary and issue remained live | Court held the appeal was not moot because Holiday only left after the court authorized a writ and a tenant who disputes possession may obtain review |
| Whether court may consider extra-record declarations attached to Holiday’s brief | Landa argued extra-record materials are not part of the appellate record | Holiday submitted two declarations asserting facts and attacking credibility | Court refused to consider the appended declarations per RAP 10.3(a)(8) because they were not in the trial record |
| Whether appellate attorney fees should be awarded for a frivolous appeal | Landa requested fees under RAP 18.9(a) | Holiday’s arguments had no merit and were waived | Court found the appeal frivolous and awarded attorney fees to Landa (subject to compliance with RAP 18.1(d)) |
Key Cases Cited
- Josephinium Assocs. v. Kahli, 111 Wn. App. 617 (discussing mootness and when a court can provide effective relief)
- Housing Auth. v. Pleasant, 126 Wn. App. 382 (tenant who disputes right of possession may obtain appellate review even after vacatur)
- MHM&F, LLC v. Pryor, 168 Wn. App. 451 (trial court subject-matter jurisdiction over title/possession issues is constitutional, not purely statutory)
- Advocates for Responsible Dev. v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hr'gs Bd., 170 Wn.2d 577 (standards for awarding appellate fees for frivolous appeals)
- Sullivan v. Purvis, 90 Wn. App. 456 (addressing landlord notice requirements; not dispositive here because Holiday challenged exemption, not notice)